Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
Bombay High Court granted conditional bail to Customs House Agent involved in transportation of drugs since applicant is already in custody for last 3 years and conclusion of trial in near future is a remote possibility.
Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Thus all the provisions relied upon by the Ld. AO would apply only in a case where an “asset” is “transferred” in the course of “amalgamation” by “transferor company” to the “transferee company” and would not apply when a particular “asset” is a “result” of amalgamation.
Kerala High Court held that person found ineligible for any benefit received under the terms of any scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) is not liable to pay interest under section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
PCIT was of the view that mere process of compression of natural gas cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity for the purpose of claim of additional depreciation.
ITAT Delhi held that protective addition in the hands of assessee deleted as substantial addition already made in the hands of the assessee’s wife and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Rajasthan High Court accepted bail application in the case of issuance of fake GST invoice since maximum punishment for the alleged offence is five years and accused has already suffered custody of more than seven months.
Registrar of Companies imposes penalty on Atomy Enterprise India Pvt Ltd for non-compliance with Section 90 of Companies Act, 2013. Read the case details and analysis.
